Hoffman, J. V., Assaf, L. C., & Paris, S. G. (2001). High-stakes testing in reading: Today in Texas, tomorrow? The Reading Teacher, 54, 482-492.
The main concern in this article is to raise attention to the impact of High-stakes testing in Texas (Texas Assessment of Academic Skills) on teaching and learning in reading. According to the authors, the accountability system and standards-based reform of Texas has been considered “a model” for other state in that they were systematic ways of monitoring factors related to students’ status in schools. In order to explore how TAAS tests impact teaching and learning in reading, the authors used surveys, which were designed to ask specifically about teachers’ responses and experiences to TAAS. A group of teachers who participated in the survey consisted of teachers were members of the Texas State Reading Association and experienced teachers.
Questions from the surveys asking about the following categories: 1) General attitudes and perceptions of others; 2) preparation and administration of the TAAS; 3) effects on students; 4) uses of TAAS; and 5) Overall impressions on TAAS. The findings revealed that teachers in this study had negative attitudes about TAAS: they thought that TAAS did not support teaching and learning and that it was not an effective ways of measuring achievement of minority and limited English-speaking students. In addition, teachers generally agreed (M = 2.8) to the elimination of TAAS while reporting that TAAS accounted substantially for the curriculum and the time to prepare. Regarding preparation and administration toward TAAS, it was noticeable that teachers took time and efforts to explain how to take tests. The effect of TAAS on students were psychologically, physically, and emotionally negative. Teacher’s perception on the administrators’ emphasis on TAAS was confirmed by the responses from school principals. Principals in this study reported that TAAS could be positively used to improve instruction, to categorize children, and to evaluate effectiveness. The findings from the overall impressions showed that a half of the teachers thought rise in the test scores did not reflect improvement in teaching and learning. Instead, teachers reported possible increase in cheating. In addition, they considered that TAAS controlled what to teach in schools and that TAAS had negative effect on children by giving them pressure.
The authors concluded that TAAS had negative impact on teaching and learning as other studies on the negative effects of high-stakes testing showed. They also concerned the detrimental effect of TAAS on minority students. Finally, they suggested possible ways to overcome the problems caused by the overemphasis on TAAS. Their suggestions included: 1) independent research on the effect of high-stakes testing from multiple perspectives; 2) careful examinations and exploration of the alternatives ; 3) advocating reasonable assessment with challenging to the high-stakes testing; and 4) never being silent about the harmful influence of TAAS on learning and teaching.
“Silence prevails in educational circles with respect to TAAS-type testing because it is viewed as a necessary evil to achieve other goals (p. 491)”
One thing that shocked me was the way of silencing the teachers and minority groups who are against high-stakes testing. In fact, it actually made high-stakes testing a necessary evil through political and economic forces. As the authors described, such forces are formidable because they made people consider high-stakes testing an effective and necessary means to determine students’ status and to improve instruction despite its harmful effects on teachers and students. As the authors of this article suggested, therefore, it is important for educators to be aware of the harmful effects of high-stakes testing and to continue challenging while constantly researching on the effects and considering the alternatives.
The results from the survey briefly illustrated students’ affective and physical discomforts caused by high-stakes testing. The results made me wonder how high-stakes testing affected students in terms of their self-images, motivation, and self-efficacy not only as learners but also as people. High-stakes testing does not only control what to teach and how teach, but it also controls what to learn and how to learn. Focusing on tests does not help improve higher-order thinking skills, creative ways of problem solving, and collaboration with others that are necessary and beneficial for students’ future. While learning to the test, how do children see themselves? In addition, considering that high-stakes testing is be used to categorize students, what are the hidden assumptions that standards /policy make? Howare children positioned in standards and policy?
